[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: >>IPSEC Agenda
Reply to: RE>>>IPSEC Agenda
Ran,
Thanks for the encouragement to post, but I am not able to complete the work
before the meeting.
>Paul,
>
> By all means post your draft proposal. However, the text of that
>Internet Draft should make it clear that it is only one possible
>proposal fo an IP Security Protocol.
>
> I happen to consider SP3's IP variant a very solid proposal that
>should be seriously considered as a/the base document. I believe that
>other folks feel the same way about SP3. If anyone has SP3 in electronic
>form, that would also be a good Internet Draft to have available.
>
> I also understand that a more detailed draft of the "swIPe" proposal
>is in preparation and I believe that those folks should be given an
>opportunity (and encouraged) to post "swIPe" as another Internet
>Draft. In my view, the "swIPe" folks need to act sooner rather than
>later in posting a specific proposal as an Internet Draft.
>
> As you can tell, I perceive there to be at least 3 potential
>approaches. Before we narrow down to using any specific proposal as a
>base document or the moral equivalent of that, I think we need to see
>Internet Drafts of all of them and have ample discussion on the ipsec
>mailing list.
>
>Ran
>atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
>
I did error somewhat in calling the document that IUd intended to post a
proposal. I was really trying to put together a discussion document for the
meeting that was somewhat proposal neutral. It is obviously too late now,
with the meeting tomorrow, but I will post after the meeting and hopefully
incorporate any recommendations from the meeting.
I have found some versions of the SP3 documentation that might be a viable
source for raw text. The latest NLSP should also be available soon in
electronic format. Hopefully next week we can get SP3, NLSP, and other
reference documents on our archive server.
Paul